The Problem with Modern Art

http://www.peterpaulrubens.net/images/gallery/the-massacre-of-innocents.jpg

Picasso, Van Gogh, de Vinci, and Michelangelo: the respect and awe inspired by the artwork these artists created has allowed their names to stand the test of time. Whispers of their accomplishments still permeate society, and children at very young ages learn to recognize and cherish their appellations.

           These individuals (and many others I have abstained from listing) held their work to the highest standard, demanded of themselves only the best quality attainable, and utilized their own artistic style to improve upon the artistic endeavors of previous masters.

           What happened to utterly alter the foundations of society’s appreciation of art? The aesthetically pleasing qualities and attention to detail shown in the artwork of Rubens and Monet have largely given way to the offensive, the pointless, and the infantile. This is not a matter of pride; artists today often hold their work in the highest esteem.

           What, then, could it be?

Impressionism was a 19^th-century art movement whose initiators were artists who rejected government-sanctioned expositions and were consequently spurned by influential academic art institutions. It was a style of art that sought to capture the sensory effect of a moment in time, one that did not rely on realistic depictions, and whose followers sought to avoid clear form and utilize intense colors to excite the senses.

           The impressionists held the philosophic idea of aesthetic relativism, in which the judgement of beauty is relative to time, to individuals, and to culture. In an artistic sense, it is a denial of all standards that had previously governed ‘acceptable art.’

           Monet himself was an impressionist. His and his contemporaries’ works still preserved the discipline and execution of talented and dedicated artists, but with each new generation the quality of artwork and the self-imposed standers of creation declined until there were none at all. These standards were instead replaced by personal expression and abstraction.

http://files.brightside.me/files/news/part_2/24305/191755-R3L8T8D-1000-5_1.jpg

   

       Without standards, how does one determine what is superior or inferior? The answer: they cannot.

        All that remains is an undefined perception of a hypothesized meaning that can neither be suitably rejected nor praised. Before, art was a means to create scenes of mythology, or religion, of literature, of substance to make a statement in an appealing way. Today, artists have been known to use shock value to accomplish the same thing.

        Not only is this acceptance of the (often) mediocre the fault of the artists themselves, it is the fault of the artistic community. We as a people have accepted this art; we have allowed blank canvases to sell for millions of dollars, for the randomness of splattered paint to be worth more than most people see in a lifetime.

        Because we have allowed this new ‘art’ to get out of hand, we must also be the ones to put it back in its place. By recognizing that something new and different is not always good, that notable names do not always create notable products, we may yet discourage and subsequently fix what has tainted society’s perception of 'good' art.

        And, maybe then, new names will begin to take their place among legends.